By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Yet they weren't independent, and weren't pressured by investors. They were owned by Sony, and told by Sony to make it more like CoD, and then shut down when it (not surprisingly) failed. So again, the less studios MicroSony owns, the mo betta imho.

As already said it could come from Sony, investors of CEO of the studio. Being owned by Sony or not can't be put as the main reason the game looked like CoD. And I say this coming from several developers that developed what they wanted and said Sony didn't pressure them to make a specific game. They even allow some devs to stay developing a game for several years and hold their financial side... and if that dev was independent it would have gone under.

There are verified former Zipper employees on GAF who have said multiple times SOCOM 4 played the way it did because Sony wanted a CoD clone. Of course publishers don't pressure all developers on all games to change their work in various ways. But this one did here. You can continue to point out that probably maybe other pubs would have maybe potentially done the same Sony did to Zipper, but I don't need any maybes or probably or any of that, I have reality on my side. And in Zipper's case, if they were third party instead of owned by Sony, they could have been pressured into changing a game and ending up releasing a turd, but still came back to do other things. See: Fuse with Insomniac.

But in Zipper's case being owned by Sony meant they had to change the game and were shut down. I hope that helps, not going to reply to more hypothetical "other pubs too!" stuff. Not sure why you're really arguing here LOL.

If it makes you feel any better on the inside, I can reference a Microsoft example too. Ensemble Studios.


To be honest I have no fucking clue what you're ranting about here. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can not be owned by MicroSony, yet also not make indie games.

I see. I take your word on it.

Since I see Sony taking a lot of risk on new IPs I don't think it was a pressure for a clone only for the pressure... but I can accept that it could had been better done.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."